Skip to main content

Public Service Television (Children)

Volume 468: debated on Tuesday 4 December 2007

[Relevant document: First Report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Session 2007-08, on Public Service Content, HC 36-I.]

I am pleased to have the opportunity to open this debate on children’s public service broadcasting. As the Minister will be aware, there has been a lot of concern over the past few months about what has been happening to children’s TV. Similar concerns have come from a range of sources, including the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, which dealt with the issue in its report on public service broadcasting in general, Ofcom, which is currently engaged in a major consultation on the future of children’s TV, and Pact, the trade association representing the independent production sector, as well as Equity and the Writers’ Guild. Parents have also expressed their concern, and Ofcom has spoken to them as part of its research. A huge variety of people have therefore expressed similar concerns about the decline in new UK programmes.

Recently, one British TV programme, “My Life as a Popat”, featured a British Indian family. It was the only programme of its kind, but it has gone because ITV has stopped all investment in British children’s programming. Under the Communications Act 2003, which specifically referred to a “culturally diverse society”, we expect publicly owned public service broadcasters to provide programmes that appeal to a wide range of people, and it simply cannot be right that such programming is disappearing.

In terms of children’s broadcasting, the volume of new UK programmes is running at about 17 per cent., although that is a considerable overestimate because it includes all the repeats; if we took those out, that percentage would drop considerably. The number of new programmes is therefore already minimal and under threat of dropping further.

Until relatively recently, there was a choice of programmes on BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5, and some of those programmes were excellent. Indeed, just last month, the British Academy of Film and Television Arts gave an award to the makers of “Wise up”, which Channel 4 used to fund. The programme tried to encourage children to become engaged in social issues. In one episode, a child wrote in because she was concerned about her mother smoking, and “Wise up” arranged for her to interview the then Health Minister about smoking policy. Such initiatives are really good, but they have disappeared.

Of course, there are concerns about the negative effects of media, including TV, on children, and the toxic childhood campaign has had things to say about excessive time spent watching TV. There are also perfectly legitimate concerns about children being exposed to inappropriate materials on the internet and in video games, and none of us would try to argue that safety issues did not matter, particularly online, or that TV was a substitute for parenting. However, the fact is that children do watch TV, and they are now watching more children’s TV, according to Ofcom’s figures, despite competition from video games and the internet. We should therefore make sure that they are watching the best, but the best is under threat.

Earlier this year, Philip Pullman—author and signatory to the toxic childhood campaign—was quoted in The Observer as saying that

“we should be able to trust the television channels to create and broadcast excellent programmes for our children, programmes which reflect the lives of modern British children in the society they know as well as exploring the imaginative, the funny and the fascinating.

The fact that such programmes are almost impossible to make today is not due to any lack of talent; it’s due to the dogmatic insistence that profit is more important than anything else”.

In research carried out by Ofcom, parents expressed very similar views about children’s TV. More than 80 per cent of parents thought that public service programming for children was very important, but only 43 per cent. thought that it was being delivered satisfactorily. That opinion gap is much larger for children’s programmes than for adult programmes. A YouGov study for the Producers Alliance for Cinema and Television found that 70 per cent. of parents agreed that UK-produced programmes are important and contribute to the UK’s cultural identity. The fact is that children like UK-produced shows. I mentioned earlier that 17 per cent. of airtime given to children’s programming broadcasts UK-produced shows. However, that airtime receives 34 per cent. of the market share on the basis of viewing figures.

My sons are both adults and well beyond watching children’s TV, but I recall some of the programmes around in the ‘70s and early ‘80s when they were young. Back then there was a lot of competition between the BBC and ITV, and both produced innovative and engaging programmes, some of which would be recognised by everyone today, such as “Blue Peter”, “Magpie” and “Rainbow”. Those programmes date back to when there was real competition between the channels to attract audiences. That competition helped to generate better and more innovative programmes.

Investment in children’s TV has traditionally come from the main public service broadcasters, such as the BBC and other channels covered by communications legislation. However, in recent years, investment from ITV, Channel 4 and Five has collapsed. According to Ofcom, total investment, over the last decade, has dropped by 50 per cent. However, that is probably an underestimate, because it includes programming commissioned before the most recent round of cuts. Some estimate that the actual reduction, when the latest cuts are taken into consideration, could be as much as 80 per cent. ITV and Channel 4 have stopped investing in UK children’s shows completely, and Five has cut back significantly.

The BBC increased investment quite significantly over that period, but now the BBC budget generally is under pressure and there will be significant cuts across the organisation, from which children’s TV will not be immune. Over the next five years, we expect the BBC to cut its investment in children’s programming by 10 per cent. It says that it can still deliver good-quality programming despite that reduction by becoming more efficient. I hope that it is right. However, a 10 per cent. cut is not insignificant, especially when set against other things that have happened.

There have been improvements in some other places. S4C, the Welsh language fourth channel, has budgeted to spend some £11 million on original programming for children during 2007. That is way above its share when compared with the percentage of children in the UK who are Welsh-speaking. It is a significant investment. S4C is also looking to expand and produce more new programmes on a dedicated channel. However, with all due respect to S4C—and I am pleased that it is doing that—it is aimed at one part of the UK and a minority of children.

If we consider the reasons for the decline in investment, there is no question but that the emergence of more and more digital channels has resulted in fragmentation of advertising revenues and audiences. Commercially, it is much easier to make a game show than a good-quality children’s programme. The huge explosion in the number of channels is making it much more difficult for Ofcom to require broadcasters to provide public service programming and maintain the interests of children. Of course, Ofcom is required to take some market forces into account, too. It is limited in what it can do.

Some people—a minority—say, “Well, the BBC is doing fine, so isn’t that enough?” I do not think that it is. The BBC has increased investment, which has cushioned the overall fall. However, despite the fact that the BBC has increased investment, there has been a huge drop. Ofcom has shown that there will be a further drop of as much as 21 per cent. That assumes that the investment from Five does not decline. Even when Ofcom considered the positives, the best and most optimistic conclusion was a rise of 10 per cent. in investment in new UK programming. That optimistic scenario was based on an assumption that the BBC would invest more, when the reality is that the pressures on the BBC will mean that it will decrease its investment.

The consequences of the lack of investment will be that drop in new programming, of course, and a lack of choice. Back in 1998, BBC channels accounted for about one third of all new UK children’s programming on public service broadcasting channels. In 2006, that figure was up to 75 per cent. and, following present trends, it will soon reach 90 per cent. I agree that the BBC is doing a good job, but it cannot do everything. I do not think that people want a choice between British shows on the BBC and imports everywhere else. That is where we are in danger of going. People want some genuine choice in public service programming and some creative competition—the sort of thing that was happening in the 1970s and 1980s.

On the new cable and satellite channels, virtually everything is imported. Those channels are responsible for only 10 per cent. of investment in UK programming. That is not surprising—they are commercial organisations that cannot fill the gap left by the main terrestrial broadcasters. That specific point was picked up by the Select Committee, which recommended that the terrestrial broadcasters—ITV, Channel 4 and Five—ought to continue to invest.

Ofcom says that the BBC is not enough. The Government, in a White Paper on the BBC review, said that it was important to sustain the plurality of the public service broadcasting providers, which complement and compete with one another. The BBC itself says that it is not enough on its own. The director of BBC Vision in a speech in July said that the BBC does not want to be a monopoly, and that competition was good for the BBC, as it keeps it sharp.

In relation to the quality and range of original programmes, the Communications Act 2003 says that children’s programming is a core part of public service broadcasting. Under the Act, that should be considered across the board—across all the channels. I am sure that it was not envisaged under the Act that there would be just one significant provider. Although the BBC has more than one channel for children, the BBC channels are to a large degree catering for children of different ages, so we do not get that much choice between them. There are some age-specific issues here. The Ofcom surveys and research say that the problem is much greater for children over the age of about nine. The provision for pre-school and early school years is considerably better, but the real holes in programming begin once we get to nine and above.

Ofcom’s powers are limited. It is required to report on whether the Communications Act 2003 requirements are being fulfilled. Ofcom is saying clearly that they are not. There are real concerns, especially for children older than nine. Yet that is about as far as Ofcom can go. It can issue advice, as it did to ITV. Ofcom said that reducing children’s programming would be a significant change that it would not like—but ITV went ahead anyway.

The question is, what shall we do? Ofcom will be producing a response to the consultation and, starting next year, will be reviewing public service broadcasting. The Government will be looking at the spending. Those things are important—Ofcom doing that work and the Government looking at what comes out of the review—but if we wait for those reviews, we will probably be waiting for a couple of years. Everything that we see now—what is happening with investment or new programmes—suggests that we cannot wait for two years. If we wait, there will not be people to make the shows, because the decline in funding is undoubtedly affecting the production sector. The independent production sector, which made a lot of programming, particularly ITV’s, but also the BBC’s, consists of freelance writers, directors and performers, who will go somewhere else if the money and work disappear to find other things to do. Already some of the companies in the independent sector are having to scale down. If that happens, it is difficult to see how they can sustain themselves and how new talent can come through.

Yes, we need the long-term strategy, but we also need to think about what to do in the interim. Ofcom has suggested a number of things that could be looked at, and I will mention a couple of them. One would be straightforward investment to provide investment in the production of children’s programmes that meet agreed criteria and which is targeted where there are shortfalls, such as for nine-year-olds and above. Perhaps a more attractive proposition would be to look at a tax credit, which could be beneficial and targeted. We have precedent, because we have a tax credit system for British film, which is there to stimulate the production of new British films. A tax credit would be easier to use in TV than in film, because it would be easier automatically to tie it to the fact that the work has been produced for a British broadcaster. One can produce a film, but there is no guarantee that anybody is going to like or distribute it, which is always a danger, but targeted tax credits in the children’s TV sector are clearly an option. In the longer term—after the Ofcom review and Government review—if alternatives were being developed, one would need some form of exit strategy from the tax credit, but I would not have thought that impossible to devise.

As someone who represents Soho as part of his constituency, I have obviously seen the benefits of having such a tax credit in the British film industry over the past 10 years, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises that it does not come without a certain amount of controversy and that there has understandably been a paring back. How can we ensure with the tax credit system that we are not just producing a hell of a lot of quantity, rather than having quality programming coming through? The Government have wrestled with that balance over many years. Obviously, there have been financial issues, but there is little doubt that the balance was wrong three or four years ago regarding quality and quantity, and the Government have understandably taken action, as far as the film business is concerned, to ensure that it is put right. I am not sure that tax credits, even for children’s programming, would necessarily result in the right answers that the hon. Gentleman seeks.

I understand the point and I would not argue that a tax credit is the longer-term answer. My question is what can we do immediately in the short term? I hope that over the next couple of years, through the reviews that are taking place and through what Ofcom is doing, we will get some idea of longer-term provision. Can we wait that long before we do anything? Perhaps a tax credit is one way of plugging a gap. I understand about quantity and quality, but we are at such a crisis point that the issue is finding something that stimulates a bit more creative programming in the interim, pending the longer-term review.

On the tax credit paring back problem, one of the ideas that has been put forward is that the tax credit should be awarded to broadcasters who can demonstrate an investment strategy over the previous three years that includes stability of investment and then growth, so that we are not replacing what would have been otherwise planned.

I thank my hon. Friend for that point. The conditions attached to a tax credit are obviously critical in making sure that we avoid some of the problems that could otherwise turn up. Channel 4 is one of the channels that ought to look at re-entering public service children’s TV. Yesterday, I heard the news that Channel 4 is pulling out of educational programming.

That was the news. I understand that the programming is not being chopped and that it is being transferred to the internet. It is easy to assume that that means that everybody can still see it, but that is not necessarily the case. Channel 4 could be an alternative home, and it could create some healthy competition for the BBC. It has produced some good stuff—I have mentioned “Wise Up”, which recently received an award. Of course, under the Communications Act 2003, there is no explicit requirement for Channel 4 to broadcast children’s shows, but we expect it to provide programmes that appeal to a diverse audience and programmes of educative value. Channel 4 seems one of the obvious channels that could step in and fill some of the vacuum, particularly for older children. That is where the biggest problem lies, since the cuts and since Five withdrew from programming for children over seven. We are missing shows that could fit in with Channel 4’s strengths.

There is a dearth of high-quality UK-made programmes and a danger of their further disappearance. The evidence is clear that public service programming for children on the commercial channels is under threat. Virtually everybody, including the BBC itself, agrees that the BBC on its own is not enough and that we need intervention. The Select Committee has asked the Government to identify an appropriate number and range of UK-made children’s programmes and to take steps to intervene, if there is a shortfall. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport acknowledged that the Government value UK programming and that there is pressure on commercial broadcasters. Ofcom is still consulting, so I understand that the Secretary of State might not want to specify any particular intervention today, but I hope that he will acknowledge that problems exist and look seriously at what might be done, whether it is tax credit or some other short-term intervention. If we do not act soon, within two or three years it will be too late.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) on his thoughtful contribution and on securing this debate. He referred to the profit motive and the lack of profitability of many children’s programmes. He mentioned some great concerns, such as that only 17 per cent. of product on our main television stations is home-grown. As he rightly said, the explosion of channels—they are not necessarily widely available, although I suspect that they will become increasingly so to both young and older people in the years ahead—plays its part as well.

It is a little depressing that more of our product is not sold overseas. One appreciates that it might not earn the same enormous sums as “Inspector Morse” or many of our period dramas, but we make some tremendously high-quality children’s television that should have a broad overseas market, particularly in the two great economic superpowers India and China.

The hon. Gentleman gave an interesting example, which I suspect was a counter-example, in relation to S4C. I do not know all the facts, but I presume that there is quite a large demand on the Welsh Assembly’s education budget to ensure more and more Welsh-language programming. Throughout Wales—not just in the traditionally Welsh-speaking parts in the north and west—children from the age of 5 or 6 are expected to be learning Welsh, and television is an important part of that. I suspect that his example is the exception that proves the rule about the state of children’s programming.

This debate is about public service television for children, but as anyone in the TV production world can tell us, some of the current problems stem in large part from proposals for strict new regulation of advertising during children’s programmes, and I shall concentrate some of my remarks on that matter. The proposals to restrict advertising have played a large part in the virtual standstill in commissioning, producing and creating shows for young people in all parts of the commercial television world. We all know the acute financial problems faced by the ITV companies as well as Channels 4 and 5 and, as the hon. Gentleman made clear, budget constraints at the BBC will only get worse.

I am not blaming the Government. We now live in a world of many channels, and it is difficult to sustain the idea that there should be any licence fee, let alone one that is so high. I suspect that there is a political consensus that we should get the balance right, but it is almost inevitable that children’s programming will suffer. As the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, both ITV and Channel 4 have completely pulled out of commissioning new UK children’s shows, and Channel 5 has cut back on its range of programming, having already axed shows for older children. In one sense one might think that that would be good news for the BBC as a public service broadcaster. However, as the hon. Member for Walthamstow pointed out, that does not lead to more consumer choice, which I view as the key engine for greater innovation and flair in programming, and for ensuring that we have a product of such quality that it will be marketable on a global basis as I have described.

My instinctive reaction to the news of proposed new regulation is invariably suspicion. In the present context I think that that is justified. I confess that when the body that regulates television, Ofcom, began its widespread consultation, at the end of last year, on a proposal to restrict food and soft drink advertising in programmes with a particular appeal for children, my hackles were raised. I am to become a father for the first time in a matter of five weeks, and I suspect that in the years ahead I shall watch lots of programmes and get used—as the hon. Member for Walthamstow probably did in the ’70s and ’80s—to hearing children talking about particular products. I might take a slightly different view at that juncture; but, fundamentally, I believe that advertising is one of the most important safeguards for a free and open society.

In principle I do not object to the notion that advertising of dangerous or highly addictive products should be outlawed, but products that are widely and legally available should not be subject at all to advertising bans. Naturally, some intoxicants, such as alcohol, or addictive products such as tobacco, cannot legally be sold to minors, and in that regard it seems to me that commensurate restrictions on advertising such products to minors should be acceptable. However, activists have waged highly orchestrated media campaigns in recent years for a blanket pre-9 o’clock watershed ban on junk food advertising on television.

If that is the case, then one should ban minors from buying chocolate. My distinction concerns products that are considered unsuitable for minors to buy, and restrictions on advertising of such products before a watershed is fine; otherwise, I do not want advertising outlawed.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there are more fat children in Sweden than in Finland, and yet Sweden has a ban on advertising to children, and Finland does not?

My hon. Friend is obviously considerably better travelled than I am with respect to such matters, but I look forward to getting a box of Scandinavian chocolates from him before too long.

Ofcom has regarded many of the proposals as disproportionate in the way that they balance economic impact and social benefit. As has been pointed out, two groups stand to lose most from the marketing restrictions: one is, of course, the advertising industry, but the other consists of the many independent television companies that rely on advertising to fund the production of high-quality new children’s programming. Perhaps understandably, the advertising industry expresses deep frustration at the recent turn of events.

Recognising the increasing concern about childhood obesity, the advertising industry has proposed some fairly strict new rules on content, such as the removal of licensed characters and celebrities from advertisements that are directly targeted at primary school children. That amounts to an effective voluntary code, albeit one that is established in the shadow of concerted media-led pressure, which one might argue is tantamount to blackmail.

The advertising restrictions originally proposed were specifically targeted at children up to the age of 11, but it now seems likely that there will be an extension to the age of 16. As ever, with any blanket proposal, there is a risk of unintended consequences; and so it has proved. My constituency, and particularly Soho and the west end, contains the heart of Britain’s independent television industry. A number of companies that create children’s programmes have written to me to say that high-quality and domestically-produced programming has a five-decade-long tradition of excellence, and one that they hope will continue. That thriving and, to a large extent, world-leading industry feels under threat, because of the financial problems faced by ITV, which was previously the biggest single investor in new UK children’s programming in the commercially-funded broadcasting sector, and because of the food and drink advertising proposals.

It is accepted that the broadcasters’ investment in programming is directly linked to the amount of advertising associated with that programming. By restricting advertising, Ofcom, as the TV regulator, effectively restricts the broadcasters’ ability to invest in new UK programming. The advertising companies’ lobbyists suggest that the proposed advertising ban would result in a loss of revenue in the order of £40 million a year. According to Government figures, that would fall away over time as advertisers began to adapt to the new rules. However, it is estimated that the average annual investment by commercial channels in new UK children’s programming would be about £30 million.

Paradoxically, that would also undermine one of the strongest defences for maintaining the TV licence fee. As the hon. Member for Walthamstow pointed out, we are heading towards the BBC being the only significant investor in new UK children’s programmes. The ban would end the tough competition between the BBC and the commercial sector. Only strong competition will ensure that innovation and flair are at the heart of children’s programming, which will be a joy not only to generations of British children but to young people across the world to whom such programmes should be marketed.

The health benefits of reducing the amount of sugar-filled food and soft drinks that children consume cannot be denied. However, other countries have succeeded in stimulating the production of children’s television while introducing advertising restrictions. My hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey) pointed out the differing approaches in neighbouring Scandinavian countries. In Australia, where adverts during children’s programming have been restricted for some years, the leading public film and television agency invests more than half of its total television funding in children’s programmes.

It is fashionable to criticise all such measures as being the result of a nanny state. No one can deny that children need a level of protection greater than that afforded to adults when it comes to the content and surrounding material that they are likely to see on television. Even for the youngest and most impressionable of minds, advertising should be regarded as a positive experience, allowing a younger generation to make a choice about products that it wishes to consume; without that plentiful choice we would all be living in a far duller and a less free world.

I apologise to you, Mrs. Humble, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) or being late—the Mayor of London has not solved all the transport problems yet, but I am sure that he will after re-election in May. I have a constituency interest in this matter. White City in west London is in my constituency, and a number of my constituents work at the BBC and have worked in children’s television spin-off productions. I am also a member of the performers’ alliance parliamentary group and work closely with the Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematograph and Theatre Union. We have received a number of representations about the Ofcom review. This debate is timely in setting the climate for the review and trying to influence the agenda that it will address.

I want to address the issues around skills, jobs and the development of talent as the result of the review. We have all expressed the importance of the UK for children’s television, and we have a worldwide reputation for creating some of the best children’s programming. The children’s genre is the UK’s biggest television export genre after film and drama, and it accounts for 15 per cent. of all finished television programme exports. Exports of children’s programming outperformed exports from all other countries in consultations and research undertaken in recent years. We have acknowledged that it takes great skill and talent to achieve that world-class standard. It takes years to hone those skills and consistently to create world-class children’s shows that are exported internationally. The common wisdom is that creating top-class children’s programming involves a specialist skill set by its very nature, because it has a specialist audience.

We are proud of our achievements so far. The most important thing about the Ofcom review is that we build upon the achievements and do not jeopardise existing provision. The vast majority of companies that create children’s programmes are specialist. The most recent census by the Producers Alliance for Cinema and Television, the trade association for independent producers, showed that the vast majority of children’s companies have a turnover of less than £1 million. They make up more than 20 per cent. of the companies within our economy with turnovers of under £1 million, which indicates that they do very little work in other genres. They are extremely specialist, and even the biggest companies in the sector, such as Aardman, Hit, Entertainment Rights and Chorion, are specialists in children’s content. When non-children’s companies move into children’s programmes, they poach staff from within the children’s sector to oversee the move, which is what RDF Media has done recently.

My concern is that we are in danger of losing those skills for ever if we do not nurture that sector of the industry. The decline in funding has already hit the production sector dramatically. Independent production companies traditionally made 70 per cent. of ITV’s children’s programming. They, and the freelance writers, directors, performers and crew members who work with them, have borne the brunt of the cuts in investment. In several of our constituencies, we have seen a number of staff laid off or reduced to short-term working. The decline has not been gradual: ITV’s withdrawal from commissioning new shows in early 2006 meant that around a third of the total funds available to independent companies literally disappeared overnight. That would be hard for any business to manage, but the vast majority of children’s companies are small, specialist operations, and it has become crippling for a number of them. As the Minister knows, some companies have gone to the wall as a result.

Companies in the independent sector are already scaling down and jobs are already being lost. Several of my constituents in the production sector have lost their jobs in recent months. It is hard to see how new talent will be able to come through in the future and develop the skills needed to maintain our status in this country as one of the world’s leading creators of children’s programmes.

For the companies that have managed the sudden drop in investment, the BBC is now the monopoly buyer for many types of public service programmes. No one—certainly not the suppliers who make the programmes or the BBC itself—believes that that is healthy. The BBC has publicly stated on a number of occasions that a strong and healthy independent sector is crucial to providing creative competition and fostering innovation. In addition, the dramatic fall in investment is removing the incentive for talented producers, writers, performers and creators to continue to work within this area of television. We have lost a number of creative workers to other fields as a result of that.

Those who continue to work in the sector are seeing ever-increasing pressures on their fees and are more often expected to work outside the standard industry contracts in an attempt to save money. In fact, they are being exploited as a result of the pressures on them. The fees paid to the so-called talent are being squeezed, as the hourly budgets available for children’s programmes are being reduced. It is important to understand that the fees are already modest and are paid for work relating to individual projects, so there is no certainty of continuing income.

I have looked at the minimum weekly rates for performers working in television on Equity contracts, which range from £545 to £640 depending on the employer. That includes transmission on a major UK channel, but it is not a huge amount when one considers that it is paid only for those weeks when the performers are lucky enough to be working. Even so, budgets are so tight that such standard contracts are often ignored within the industry now. That helps to minimise secondary payments, such as royalties owed to performers and other rights holders when a programme is successfully sold or exploited in other markets.

The downward pressure on contracts and fees is now stronger than ever, and many people are finding that it is just not financially viable to carry on within the industry. We need to ensure that there is an incentive for talented people to work in the field, particularly in the production of high-quality programmes for children, and to ensure that those skills are passed on to the next generation, otherwise they will be lost. People entering the industry now need to ensure that they are mixing with the highly talented and creative people who have developed the high-quality programmes that we have seen in recent years.

The Treasury’s review of skills set great store by employer-led training, which is one of the key strategies being developed with Skillset, the sector skills council for the audio-visual sector. The strategy has been welcomed in the industry and by the trade union and is the key to the future. Children’s programming has traditionally excelled at employer-led training, because, uniquely, it is multi-genre and acts as a microcosm for the rest of the industry. It has been a test bed for new young talent in the industry to develop their skills and often to go on to other genres with equal success. Examples of people who got their break in children’s television include—I leave opinions on this to individual taste—Lenny Henry, Phillip Schofield, Ant and Dec and Tony Robinson. As I have said, leave it to individual taste. Behind the camera is a long list of writers, directors and other crew members who learned and honed their skills in children’s television.

The question for the Minister as part of the review is who will nurture such talent in the future? It is hard to see how new talent will be able to come through and develop the skills that are needed in the long term to maintain our status as a world leader, if the funding supply is reduced and the financial pressures continue as at present.

If further public support becomes available for children’s programming at some future point, whether through a contestable fund, tax breaks, which have been advocated today, or other methods, it would be helpful if a condition of access to the funding were the use of appropriate contracts and respect for decent terms and conditions for those responsible for writing and performing the work. That will help to ensure that leading talent has the incentive to continue working in this field, that we embed skills for the long-term future and that the next wave—the next generation—have those skills passed on to them in an environment in which they are not exploited but incentivised to perform at their best.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) on securing this debate on what is a very important topic for a very important industry. Before coming to the substance of my remarks, I want to refer to my intervention on the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field). I think I am in danger of every chocolate company in the country writing to tell me that chocolate is, of course, not addictive. The point that I was trying to make was that sweet things in particular have a moreish taste for children and it is important that we carefully consider how we advertise stuff to children. That is what the Ofcom review did and what we have debated in the House. I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House have agreed that the Ofcom proposals should be put into effect and then we can review them over a period of time.

Will the Minister examine the cost of the advertising ban in terms of the advertising revenues of TV companies? A figure of £30 million is being bandied around, but I do not know whether it is correct. Perhaps the Minister, in his summation of the debate, will tell us. Will he tell us now, or perhaps at another time, whether the ban is having an impact on children’s behaviour? Of course, it will not work on its own, because most of children’s behaviour in relation to what they eat is about not only advertising, but peer group pressure—it is about what everyone else has. However, before I divert into a health debate, I will give way.

In some senses, this is no different from the arguments that went on about tobacco advertising and sport sponsorship from tobacco advertising. We have to find alternatives, if we agree that such advertising is not desirable.

I take the point, but I am not sure whether I would like to draw many parallels between chocolate, fats and cheese, and tobacco and alcohol. Tobacco is harmful to health. Alcohol in excess is definitely harmful to health. Of course, none of us here would ever indulge in either of those terrible things—at least, I do not in one, but I perhaps do in the other.

In preparing for the debate, I was thinking about my own childhood and the TV programmes that I used to enjoy as a child, and what impact they had upon me. I remember watching every week a programme called “How”, which included a lot of scientific explanation. I found that programme absolutely intriguing, and I think that I learned a lot from that. Jack Hargreaves, I think, did a country life programme about fishing and other things, which I was also intrigued by. I remember science fiction programmes like “The Tomorrow People” from when I was a teenager. I remember the first programme of “Magpie” and even appeared on the second programme—I have, I believe, the first ever “Magpie” bird badge ever presented to anyone. As a consequence, I was addicted to “Magpie” for ever afterwards. There was also, of course, “Blue Peter”, which we would always watch, I think, on a Monday afternoon. I also watched the programmes my kid brother, Paul, used to watch—he was 10 years younger than me. He watched things like “Byker Grove”, “Grange Hill” and “Tiswas”. I never quite understood “Tiswas”, but he seemed to enjoy it.

Then we look at today. I do not know what kids of today watch, because, unfortunately, I do not have any children. Congratulations to the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster on his forthcoming parenthood. I am sure that he will have many a happy hour watching TV programmes with his toddlers. There are programmes that have been mentioned already, like “My Life as a Popat” and, of course, the still-ubiquitous Blue Peter”.

Today, the market is very different for children. They can shop around more for media and other activities—they can go online and they have DVDs. When I was a young lad, there was no such thing as a video, let alone a DVD, and there was no way to buy programmes or films in shops. That competition is diversifying the advertisers’ market and is partly causing the problem. To say, as I think that some might, that it is the fault of the Ofcom ban would in my view be misleading, because the problem of advertising, as it concerns the main TV companies, is a lot bigger—and in some ways a lot worse—than that. We need to look at the future of TV itself.

The real question about the figures on the number of British companies is whether we should produce here or whether we should import. We can buy in American programmes. I remember a lot of good American programmes, such as “Hopalong Cassidy” and “The Lone Ranger”, which we used to enjoy. I do not think that we had many cowboys in south London at the time—actually, maybe we did have a few cowboys in south London, but not with big hats and horses. There was, however, an essential difference between those programmes and British-made programmes. I think it important that children are exposed to programmes that have an inherent British cultural element, and we are in danger of losing that if we allow production to be, in effect, moved abroad, or to be restricted to just the BBC.

One has only to look at examples of British comedy programmes translated and remade in the United States. I watch the UK versions and I laugh. I do not know about other hon. Members, but when I look at the US remakes, I do not understand where they are coming from, because they appeal to a different sense of humour and a different cultural element. We have, of course, different cultural mixes and subcultures in this country, and it is important that our industry tries to reflect that—a programme that I mentioned earlier, “My Life as a Popat”, is a very good example of that. The BBC is investing, but it has no competition. If the genesis of the creativity that we had in the ’70s and ’80s was competition between the independent sector and the BBC, then we are losing that vital dynamic between the two. It is good for the BBC for there to be a flourishing independent children’s sector in TV programming.

How much TV children should watch is a matter of debate. Dr. Arik Sigmund and Sue Palmer, the author of “Toxic Childhood”, suggest that too much TV is bad. Yes, we all agree that if a child is plonked in front of the TV and left there all day, it is not good for their upbringing. However, restricting the number of TV programmes will not prevent that situation, because, as I have said, there are DVDs, and parents are very good at sticking their children in front of a DVD that they have bought at the local supermarket or on the high street—on the high street, I hope.

Many TV programmes can be good for children, and the debate pack lists several such programmes. “Rainbow” explored language and number concepts; “Book Tower” encouraged creativity and reading; “Art Attack” encourages creativity; the “Fun Song Factory” encouraged young children to dance and sing along; “Fifi and the Flowertots” promotes the environment and health; and “Brainiac” is science made fun. The only one of those that I have seen is “Brainiac”, which is an intriguing programme that is very well put together. A 2006 university of Chicago study of 800 schools concluded that an additional year of pre-school television exposure for students in the model had slightly raised average test scores, so the idea that we can let children’s TV go to the wall because it is bad for them is wrong.

The question is, what can we do? We could wait for the Ofcom report, but what will we lose in the meantime? Children’s TV has expertise, and as the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) has said, we are in danger of losing its writers and producers. The problem is that if we lose them, it will be hard to bring them back later. When the phone-in competition debacle happened a few weeks ago, one suggested cause was the lack of training given to TV producers, which meant that they did not understand what they were getting themselves into. If we lose children’s TV programmes, we are in danger of losing the expertise and the training that people have to produce those programmes, and it would be hard to bring it back.

The hon. Gentleman has mentioned tax credits. I shall not today commit the Liberal Democrats to spending £10 million, purely because we all know about the wit of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable)—I should not like to be on the wrong end of something that he said. However, the idea of tax credit must be examined. The Government should consider that option’s costs and benefits, and in particular, the argument that if one increases production, the cost is not a tax loss, because one brings more revenue back into the country, as has happened with the film industry.

I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) on securing the debate. It is customary in such debates to congratulate the Member who has secured it, but my congratulations are heartfelt, because he has brought to the attention of the House an important subject that deserves debate. The debate itself is timely, as hon. Members have made clear.

I also congratulate those organisations that have campaigned so assiduously over the past few months about children’s television, particularly the Producers Alliance for Cinema and Television, Save Kids’ TV and the Voice of the Listener and Viewer. Some of their campaigning has found its way to stage 1, because it was reflected in the recent excellent report by the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport.

It is fair to say that children’s TV has been caught in a perfect storm. The Communications Act 2003 removed a direct obligation on public service broadcasters to provide children’s programming, replacing it with an indirect obligation to provide children’s programming as part of broadcasters’ general public service remit. There are the continuing difficulties faced by some of our commercial public service broadcasters, which have led to cuts in children’s programming, most notably at ITV. There is also the inevitable consequence of a multi-channel digital environment providing much more competition and choice.

There is also the issue of the forthcoming advertising ban by Ofcom, so ably highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) in his most excellent speech. Before I move on to the substance of that speech, I will also briefly congratulate my hon. Friend on the news of the impending birth of his first child, which fills us all with joy. My second child will follow his about five weeks later, and I can tell him what he has coming as a new parent. He may represent Soho, but I can assure him that he will not see that place again for the next six or seven years—at least, not after seven o’clock in the evening.

My hon. Friend made a most excellent point, and while it is not my place to question the ban that is now being put into effect, one does wonder about the intellectual coherence of such a ban. For example, I have already referred to the multi-channel environment, but children get their messaging not only from the television, but at the bus stop and on the internet. That ban, which is estimated to cost some £20 million or £30 million of advertising revenue per year, could throw the baby out with the bath water. We might be spuriously protecting our kids from inappropriate advertising, while replacing it with less quality programming to watch in direct consequence. My hon. Friend’s points were extremely well made, and I hope that the Minister will take them on board.

As I indicated in my opening remarks, some of the crisis facing children’s television might well be an inevitable result of a rapidly changing technological environment. Reference has been made to the Channel 4 announcement yesterday that it is moving its £6 million education programming budget on to the internet. Indeed, from a sedentary position, the Minister’s Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Derek Wyatt), made the point that the provision is going on to the internet, which reminds us how much we have lost from his elevation, given his candid remarks in previous debates on many issues that have proved so helpful to me as the Opposition spokesman. However, that is not an attempt by Channel 4 to cut its funding of provision for children, but a recognition—made explicit in its announcement yesterday—that providing educational programmes for kids while they are at school is not the best way of reaching them. Most research shows that almost everything that kids learn or watch nowadays is via the internet, so it makes sense for Channel 4 to look at putting things there within its innovative remit.

As the Minister will no doubt say, one aspect of technological change is this peculiar paradox: although there is a crisis in children’s television, we have never had so much of it. In the past five or six years, we have moved from having six dedicated children’s television channels to having 25 of them, and from 20,000 hours of programming to 112,000 hours of programming, which is an increase of around 500 per cent. The BBC says that it has more than doubled original programming from 476 hours to 1,276 hours, while Five still broadcasts 652 hours. Indeed, public money on original programming has risen from £70 million to £126 million. One could be forgiven for asking, “Crisis? What crisis?”, except that when one hears that phrase, one knows that there is a genuine crisis.

We therefore need to narrow down the terms of this debate. The headline of our debate makes it clear that we are talking about the need to preserve plurality and competition in children’s programming, above all to preserve a semblance of original, British-made programming for British children. Of the 25 dedicated channels, for example, 18 are owned by American companies such as Disney, the Turner Broadcasting System and Viacom. Indeed, within the hours of programming that I have mentioned, public service broadcasting hours have fallen from an average of around 4,500 to 5,000 hours a year to 4,250 hours. The hon. Member for Walthamstow made it clear in his speech that most predictions see those hours falling dramatically. As we have heard, ITV’s hours have fallen from about 724 to 468. In evidence to the Select Committee, the chairman, Michael Grade, was asked whether he could see children’s programming forming a part of ITV’s main schedules. His reply was explicit:

“In the long term I cannot see it, no”.

At this point, it is appropriate for me to congratulate the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on his excellent speech. He reminded us again what a fine leader of the Labour party we have lost, and how different things could have been, if party members had seen sense in July. He brought alive for us the unique nature and quality of children’s television, of our production skills and of the pressures being brought to bear.

I am about to leave the Chamber for another meeting, for which I apologise. I have made that clear because I did not want the hon. Gentleman to take it as a response to his reference to my leadership of the Labour party.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman—he is more senior and wise than me—for that warning.

The theme of the hon. Gentleman’s speech was picked up by the hon. Member for Teignbridge, who focused on the need to preserve British programming and on the innate qualities inherent in it. He got to that point only after a lengthy disquisition on comparisons between chocolate and tobacco. Indeed, at one point I had a vision of his acting as a reverse Willy Wonka, going around closing chocolate factories. I have no doubt that he will be inundated with Wispa bars in the weeks to come, just in time for Christmas. However, he has made some valid points. Among the reams of statistics cited today, it is telling that repeat programmes now form 86 per cent. of children’s programming and that original programming has fallen from about 29 per cent. of public service broadcasting to 10 per cent.

That is the crisis that we face. We are considering plurality: is the BBC to remain the sole provider of original children’s content; and will we have British-originated programming in years to come? In many ways, that change mirrors the decline of the British film industry after the second world war.

Ofcom is conducting a review, which is useful for many reasons, not least because of the international comparisons. I was struck by the fact that, when it comes to intervention, the British model appears to be as stripped back as the German and Spanish models. Even America—it is supposedly the home of non-intervention, but those who study American politics and systems know that it is a highly interventionist and regulatory environment—has a quota system on top of the system that we use. France, Australia, Canada and many other countries have a mixture of output and production quotas, with direct funding and even tax breaks.

If one looks abroad, one realises that countries across the globe value their indigenous broadcasts, although they may not be of the same quality, depth or breadth as British children’s programming, even at this late stage. We have a viable, highly successful and high-quality industry, and we should be considering what options we have to help to sustain it. Some of the options are set out in the Select Committee report published recently, and some are set out in the Ofcom review. Those options include doing nothing and allowing the status quo to be maintained—in effect, allowing the BBC to become the only commissioner of British-originated children’s programming. However, I doubt whether anyone would be content to leave things like that.

Two viable options are emerging. The first is the tax credit. I hear the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster about the danger that programmes may be made simply to benefit from the credit. The Government have spent several years trying to get the film tax credit right, which is a useful comparison. Although many in the UK film industry are annoyed at the way in which it has come about, given that less money is now available for UK film, I have to tell the Minister—through gritted teeth—that there is a grudging recognition that the tax credit is now narrowly and properly focused to try to root out abuse of the system. However, it is early days, and I may change my mind on that point.

As I understand it, PACT has proposed a sensible and narrowly focused option of a tax credit worth 30 per cent. of the production cost that will expire in 2012. To pick up explicitly on what the hon. Member for Walthamstow has said, such a tax credit would act as a lifeline for the industry until an alternative model is present. When we talk about an alternative model, we are talking about not only children’s television but the bigger picture of what we should do about public service broadcasting in a multi-channel environment. That is the big debate that will kick off early next year, and children’s programming will form part of that. In fact, it may form the vanguard of what we do.

The Select Committee, ably chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale), has come up with the idea of a public service fund, which would somehow top-slice the licence fee and give other public service broadcasters a slice of the fee to carry out public service broadcasting. Another idea is to create a public service licence fee pot to allow broadcasters or production companies to bid for funds. That seems to be the most fertile idea that people are debating, and we are looking at it closely. Personally, I do not support the idea of creating a separate channel for or publisher of children’s programming or public service content.

Another alternative may be to reconsider and amend the Communications Act 2003, so that we revert to the system under the previous broadcasting legislation, with a direct quota for public service broadcasters. However, that might be the straw that breaks the camel’s back, considering the fact that the environment now is so different to that of 15 years ago.

This debate has been incredibly valuable. It has come at the right time, as the overall debate will start to crystallise in the new year. The Select Committee report has been published; we are due to receive the results of Ofcom’s review early in the new year; and in the spring, we will see Ofcom’s wider conclusions on public service broadcasting. We wait with bated breath to hear the Minister’s early thinking. Most hon. Members involved in the debate recognise that we have a fantastic resource in UK-originated children’s programming, and we must consider imaginative and sensible ways in which we can ensure that it continues to exist.

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Bayley. First, I want to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) on securing the debate, which, as all hon. Members have recognised, is important and comes at an appropriate time. I pay tribute to him, too, for the work that he does as secretary of the performers’ alliance parliamentary group alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). Like the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey), I pay tribute to the organisations that have helped my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow to get to this point through their work campaigning on behalf of children’s programming.

On those rare occasions when we can put partisan political differences to one side, it is important that we discuss the subject in great detail, as we have this morning. The future of children’s programming is a serious issue, and it is important that we reach the right conclusion on where we need to be. Before I forget, I congratulate the hon. Members for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) and for Wantage on the impending births in their families in anticipation of everything going okay.

I do not think that anyone would argue with the assertion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow that British children’s programming is among the best, if not the best, in the world. I acknowledge all the contributions that make it the best. The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington made about the skills base, knowledge and expertise in production companies was not lost on me, and it would be wrong to lose those things. I recognise the urgency of the matter.

As we have heard, we all have rich memories of television from our childhoods. Programmes such “Blue Peter”, “How” and “Magpie” have been mentioned, which have not only entertained but educated us. “LazyTown” has been referred to, which I understand is a Finnish programme. It is about healthy lifestyles and, as the Minister with responsibility for sport, I am delighted that we have programmes that help people to have better, healthier lifestyles, so I congratulate that programme.

Children’s programmes have raised many matters for people to face and deal with. The “Just Say No” drugs campaign in “Grange Hill” has embedded itself in our national psyche. The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) mentioned other programmes such as “Tiswas” and “My Parents Are Aliens”, which simply make us laugh. The impressions that such nostalgic programmes give us last for life, so we must take this opportunity to consider what will happen in future. I have taken great delight in sitting down and seeing many programmes with my children, who are now grown up and have children of their own, and I now sit down with our grandchildren and watch programmes that impress them. Many of us remember the “Doctor Who” series from when we were children, and it is great for me to sit down with my grandchildren and see them be scared in the same way that I was. We should not forget the impact that successful children’s programmes have on our national economy. “Teletubbies” and “Bob the Builder” had enormous worldwide success and are being closely followed by new programmes such as “In the Night Garden”, which has captured the imagination of millions of children.

It is sad, although appropriate, that we are concentrating not on the success of children’s programmes but on the problems that the children’s television industry faces. As hon. Members have said, Ofcom’s report on the future of children’s television highlighted a number of problems. It confirmed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow has said, that parents believe that the UK-originated children’s programming is highly valued, but many feel that it is not being delivered satisfactorily, especially in reflecting cultures and opinions from around the UK. Ofcom’s figures show that, as has been said, 17 per cent. of children’s television is made in the UK, and I acknowledge the point that was made about repeats in that figure. Those programmes represent a 38 per cent. share of viewing, and the majority of them are commissioned by the public service broadcasters.

Children are watching more children’s programming, according to Ofcom, and viewing in children’s airtime has increased from 27 per cent. to 30 per cent. of total viewing since 2002. As the hon. Member for Wantage has said, at first glance there has never been more children’s programming available. There are about 25 dedicated channels, and about 113,000 hours of programmes are transmitted each year. The BBC, which has produced children’s programmes since July 1946, launched two digital channels in 2002 specifically for children, and now 80 per cent. of us live in digital TV homes. CBeebies, for nought to six-year-olds, and CBBC, for six to twelve-year-olds, are the two most popular children’s channels in the UK. As has been said, there has also been a positive response to S4C’s public consultation on its proposals for a new children’s channel, especially from parents and Welsh language organisations. That is another interesting opportunity.

If we look more closely, we see that cartoons account for 61 per cent. of the output, and a high proportion is international, mainly American, programming. I am not going to criticise all American programming and animation, as that would be completely unfair. Programmes such as “High School Musical” and “SpongeBob SquarePants” are of a high quality and entertaining. However, there is understandably concern that more programming needs to reflect our culture, in a way in which only programmes such as “Byker Grove” and “Grange Hill” can.

Why are we in the current position? As my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow and others have said, it is well documented that ITV has withdrawn from commissioning new children’s programming. It was the biggest investor in UK children’s programming in the commercial sector, with an input estimated at between £22 million and £25 million a year. The impact of its withdrawal on the industry therefore cannot be underestimated. However, we must recognise that ITV operates in a commercial world and must be realistic about its opportunity costs.

We are moving rapidly towards a fully digital age, and the developments that I have outlined, along with greater restrictions on advertising in and around children’s programmes, are challenging commercial public service broadcasters’ ability to sustain their public service programming, including that for children. In that respect, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wantage for explaining Channel 4’s position regarding the move from television to the internet, which my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) mentioned.

Channel 5 is facing the same problems and recently announced that it was axing its programming for older children aged up to 11 to concentrate on television for four to seven-year-olds. It believes that focusing on programming for younger children will increase its chances of generating revenues from merchandising, the vast majority of which come from pre-school programming for under-fives.

The Government recognise that advertising restrictions are having an impact on the industry, and I understand the concerns that the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster eloquently raised in that respect. He will understand that increased childhood obesity and poor diet are two of the most significant public health issues in our society, and it would have been irresponsible of the Government not to recognise the need for decisive action.

Has the Department conducted any study of how quickly the ban on advertising will lead to a reduction in obesity in children and young people?

Not yet, but we are obviously looking at the issue. We clearly have to tread with caution. Along with health and education colleagues, I sit on the ministerial committee on obesity, which must suggest realistic ways of combating obesity, while recognising the impact on industry and the wider commercial world, and we are committed to doing that. In striking that balance, we must help families to lead healthier and more active lives, and a key element of our comprehensive approach is the commitment to changing the nature and balance of food promotion to children.

As a result of wide-ranging consultation earlier this year, Ofcom announced significantly strengthened new rules, including a ban on high-fat, salt and sugar food advertising in and around all children’s programming, on dedicated children’s channels and in programmes of particular appeal to children under the age of 16. Ofcom also set out new rules on the content of advertisements targeted at primary school children, banning the use of celebrities and characters licensed from third parties to make promotional, health or nutritional claims.

We all accept that this is a complex issue, and Ofcom has sought to strike a balance between the need to protect the health of our children and the need to consider the impact on our broadcasting industries and particularly children’s television programming. That is why the Government and Ofcom will undertake comprehensive reviews of the impact of the new rules. Based on an extensive regulatory impact assessment, Ofcom has estimated that the new rules will have a net cost to the industry of up to £27 million.

All the issues that I have set out were considered earlier this year as part of Ofcom’s review of the future of children’s television programming, which was the most substantial analysis of British children’s TV ever produced. Ofcom’s report identifies a number of options that emerged from stakeholders, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow has alluded. One option was to maintain the status quo and leave lead provision to the BBC. There were also broadcaster-focused options, such as a dedicated fund for children’s programmes or output quotas. Other options included production incentives, such as tax credits, and I share the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster about the tax credit position. I also thank the hon. Member for Wantage for congratulating the Government—through gritted teeth or otherwise—on the success of tax credits for the film industry. None the less, the issue of quality and quantity is important, and we must look at it. Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow and Ofcom’s review both discussed the option of extending Channel 4’s remit or creating new public institutions, such as a non-BBC children’s channel.

As my hon. Friend has said, Ofcom’s discussion paper is now in the public domain, and the responses to it will form part of the national debate that Ofcom has called for on the future of children’s television, and today’s debate is an important ingredient in that. The Government will listen to that national debate with great interest, and, again, I acknowledge the urgency of the situation, given the time scales involved. Whatever decisions the Government and others make, it is important to ensure that they are the right decisions. I assure my hon. Friend and other hon. Members that we are fully engaged in this issue. When respected industry figures, such as Anna Home, Floella Benjamin and others speak, we have to listen and take the issue seriously.

We have already engaged with the industry. In April this year, the DCMS organised a seminar, in conjunction with BAFTA, in order to examine the future of UK children’s programming. We have brought forward our wider review of funding for public service broadcasting, beyond the BBC, to follow up Ofcom’s review of the same subject. That will feed into our work on the implications of convergence, which is particularly important because older children and younger teenagers now watch less television and use the internet and mobile phones more than ever. Those work streams will ensure that we take full account of the changing context of television when considering the place of UK-produced children’s programming.

This has been an important debate for reasons outlined. I believe that a consensus will emerge on the need to maintain UK programming and to ensure that we remain the best in this field. We must also acknowledge the impact on skills, which is why the Government have carried out important work to develop skills programmes with the industry. Trade unions in the industry also have a big role to play. We must move this debate forward, because if we do not act quickly, our best endeavours will not be enough to retain the necessary skills.

We must examine and debate these interesting issues more fully. If we do that in the spirit of this debate—putting partisan politics to one side—a consensus can be reached that will enable us to come to a conclusion that benefits this sector.

Sitting suspended.